Obama to unveil strategy for slimmed-down military

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Obama is putting his personal stamp on a rejiggered Pentagon strategy for absorbing hundreds of billions of dollars in defense budget cuts, marking a turning point in U.S. security policy after a decade of war.

 

Obama planned to make a rare appearance in the Pentagon press briefing room Thursday to announce results of a strategy review that he ordered last spring. The aim was twofold: Streamline the military in an era of tighter budgets and reassess defense priorities in light of China's rise and other global changes.

Obama's decision to announce the results himself underscores the political dimension of Washington's debate over defense savings. The administration says smaller Pentagon budgets are a must but will not come at the cost of sapping the strength of a military in transition, even as it gets smaller.

In a presidential election year, the strategy gives Obama a rhetorical tool to defend his Pentagon budget-cutting choices. Republican contenders for the White House already have criticized Obama on a wide range of national security issues, including missile defense, Iran and planned reductions in ground forces.

Obama also wants the new strategy to represent a pivot point in his stewardship of defense policy, which has been burdened throughout his presidency by the wars he inherited and their drag on resources.

The revamped strategy, to be outlined at a news conference also attended by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs chairman, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, is not expected to radically alter defense priorities. It may set the stage, however, for expected cutbacks in Europe and big weapons programs.

It also will move the U.S. further from its longstanding goal of being able to successfully fight two major regional wars — like the 1991 Gulf War to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait or a prospective ground war in Korea — at the same time. This takes into account a bigger focus on immediate threats like cyber warfare and terrorism.

The administration and Congress already are trimming defense spending to reflect the closeout of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan. The massive $662 billion defense budget planned for next year is $27 billion less than Obama wanted and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Wednesday that Obama was closely involved in the defense strategy review, meeting six times since September with top defense officials, including Panetta and Dempsey. Vietor said the review established priorities to ensure that defense spending cuts are "surgical."

As for Obama's decision to make a personal appearance at the Pentagon, Vietor said, "It's a sign of how personally engaged he is in this process and the level of importance he puts in shaping our priorities for the next decade."

Factors guiding the Obama administration's approach to reducing the defense budget are not limited to war-fighting strategy. They also include judgments about how to contain the growing cost of military health care, pay and retirement benefits. The administration is expected to form a commission to study the issue of retirement benefits, possibly led by a prominent retired military officer.

The administration is in the final stages of deciding specific cuts in the 2013 budget, which Obama will submit to Congress next month. The strategy to be announced by Panetta and Dempsey is meant to accommodate about $489 billion in defense cuts over the coming 10 years, as called for in a budget deal with Congress last summer. An additional $500 billion in cuts may be required starting in January 2013.

A prominent theme of the Pentagon's new strategy is expected to be what Panetta has called a renewed commitment to security in the Asia-Pacific region.

On a trip to Asia last fall, Panetta made clear that the region will be central to American security strategy.

"Today we are at a turning point after a decade of war," Panetta said in Japan. Al-Qaeda is among a range of concerns that will keep the military busy, but as a traditional Pacific power the United States needs to build a wider and deeper network of alliances and partnerships in that region, he said.

"Most importantly, we have the opportunity to strengthen our presence in the Pacific — and we will," he said.

The administration is not anticipating military conflict in Asia, but Panetta believes the U.S. got so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 that it missed chances to improve its position in other regions.

China is a particular worry because of its economic dynamism and rapid defense buildup. A more immediate concern is Iran, not only for its threats to disrupt the flow of international oil but also for its nuclear ambitions.

Looming large over the defense budget debate is the prospect of reducing spending on nuclear weapons.

Thomas Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, believes the U.S. nuclear program can cut $45 billion over the coming decade without weakening the force. He estimates that reducing the U.S. strategic nuclear submarine force from 12 subs to eight could save $27 billion over 10 years. A further $18 billion could be saved by delaying the building of a new fleet of nuclear-capable bomber aircraft, he says.

Taken from Usatoday

Scientists say Pentagon misleads on dust study

The Pentagon is falsely claiming its research shows that airborne dust in Iraq and Afghanistan poses no health risk to U.S. troops, say three scientists whose review of that research found it riddled with mistakes. 

Military officials then falsely said the review of their research backed their conclusion that the dust in the two war zones is no different from that in California, scientists Philip Hopke, Mark Utell and Anthony Wexler say.

The scientists, who issued their report last year for the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences, were part of a team that reviewed a 2008 study at the request of the Pentagon.   The earlier report, which was conducted for the military by the Nevada-based Desert Research Institute, made a series of incorrect conclusions and used faulty research methods, the 2010 study showed.

It is simply not true that research supports the Pentagon's claim that Middle Eastern dust is similar to that in the United States or that it poses no health risks, says Hopke, a Clarkson University scientist who conducted the National Research Council study.

"It's a bit disappointing when they know that, realistically, the data does not support that conclusion," he says.

Both studies were conducted to better understand risks as the number of U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and developed mysterious and severe respiratory conditions skyrocketed after their service. Since the start of the wars in 2003 and 2001, neurological disorders per 10,000 active-duty servicemembers have risen by 251%, while respiratory issues jumped by 47%, according to a USA TODAY analysis of military morbidity records from 2001 to 2010.

In a series of interviews and written memos in recent months, Pentagon health officials have claimed that the 2008 study found nothing wrong with the dust from the Middle East. "It is not noticeably different from samples collected in the Sahara Desert and desert regions in the U.S. and China," Craig Postlewaite, head of the Pentagon Force Protection and Readiness Office, told USA TODAY for a May story.

That USA TODAY report, Postlewaite and other Pentagon officials later said, "attempts to form a 'cause and effect' relationship" but there is "no evidence on which to base such a relationship."

In a blog on the Defense Department's website, Navy Capt. Patrick Laraby cited the NRC study directly: "After an exhaustive review, the NRC was unable to identify any health risks and indicated that they would need more data to determine whether there were any risks," Laraby wrote.

Utell, a professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine who headed the National Research Council study, said it's incorrect for the Pentagon to claim the council's research found "no adverse health effects."

Instead, he said, the 2010 study found there could be negative health effects from the dust and that the 2008 research was so flawed "that they wouldn't be able to determine that with their study."

Utell, Hopke and Wexler, of the University of California-Davis, say their study found that the military's research in the 2008 report was flawed from the beginning, and the council made no statement that the dust is safe or similar to that back home.

In fact, they said the Army's research was so "ill-founded" that it couldn't be used to determine anything other than that the fine particulate matter levels in the Middle East far exceeded recommended World Health Organization levels.

Postlewaite did not respond directly to questions about how he and others represented the two studies. Instead, he said the council praises the military's "ability to carry out such a large-scale exposure-monitoring study in the midst of a military operation."

Utell agreed that the military took on a big task that could lead to better surveillance, but he and Wexler said military medical command were told even before they began the 2008 study that it was faulty.

"It is troubling that they did not take the scientists' recommendations to heart," Utell said.

Wexler said these kinds of studies have been performed before, so researchers should have known that the sampling equipment they used would be overwhelmed by sandstorms, that samples should not be kept in plastic containers in a hot environment because they could become contaminated, and that samples should be taken every third day - as has been the EPA standard since 1997 - rather than every sixth day.

"It's not like it's rocket science," Wexler said.

He said the researchers used "inappropriate" methods to test for metals, and that when they did perform analyses correctly, they did not release the results.

"It was just weird," Wexler said. "Were there people in the military trying to cover up and get away with something? Who knows. It could also be the best they could do with the resources they have."

Johann Engelbrecht, the Desert Research Institute scientist who led the 2008 study, called the council report "probably a fair judgment" and said he planned to use its recommendations for his upcoming report. That report is being paid for by a $1.2 million earmark put in the defense budget by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

DRI, Engelbrecht said, is independent and was not pressured by the military.

Reuniting with family after a combat deployment

It has been said that it can take anywhere between 6 and 18 months to fully recover back to "normalcy" after a combat deployment. I can tell you that the relationships you maintained and possibly improved upon will shorten that time. For many the first emotion felt after coming home from a combat deployment may be surprising to some. Things to look for upon a service member's return from a combat deployment and how to react are as follows.

1. The returning Service Member may have moments of isolation.
2. They may also have high emotions.
3. You as the family member should listen but do not react to the service member's possible expressions of anger.
4. However, you should never accept emotional or physical abuse.

It has been said that war is hell! However with proper planning you as well as your family and other relationships will survive. It is very important to take your time and expect a readjustment period. You have been gone away from home for a very long time. This absence is only compounded if you have small children. When I left home my son was 9 months old and upon my return he was nearly 3 years old. I saw a tremendous growth. There was an adjustment that we both made. Even though you may not notice, you as well as your loved ones have changed in many ways. Take it slow and seek help if needed from your local family support center or religious/spiritual advisor. Do not let your marriage become a casualty of war.

Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL)

One would be amazed at just how many hats an Adjutant wears in the course of any given day. One such hat I wore on several occasions was that of an Investigator. I would investigate all sorts of interesting things that included the investigations of solders accused of disrespecting a Non Commission Officer (NCO), another case involved the cause of death of a service member which required me to make a recommendation as to rather or not his death was in the “line of duty”. However, the most tedious types of investigations I have been appointed to investigation dealt with the loss of government property by service personnel.

It is mind boggling to know that every year tens of thousands if not millions of dollars worth of property go unaccounted for in military inventories. I have found that the typical situation involves poor accountability of government property and rarely does it involved theft of government property. However someone will have to pay for the lost, misplaced or damaged property and typically it is the person who signed for the property.

I would advice any service member, be they a Commander or Private, to ensure they accurately keep accountability of all property they are signed for. And while it may be time consuming and tedious, ensure that if you loan out property that you are signed for, ensure that the person who takes the property from you signs for the property. You want to always ensure the property is signed for down to the user level. NO EXCEPTIONS!

If you find yourself the target of a Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss or “FLIPL” remember some important basic points. First, if you have properly kept accurate records of all property you are responsible for, you will have little to worry about. This includes ensuring your hand receipts are up to date and all property is sub-hand receipted down to the user level. NO EXCEPTIONS!

You will generally have 30 days to contest the findings of the FLIPL investigator and even given the opportunity to speak with an attorney. After the 35th day has passed, the recommendation of the findings and recommendations of the FLIPL Investigator will go to the approving authority for action which may include recoupment of all or a portion of the value of what has been lost.

When taking the loss value of the property into consideration, the FLIPL Investigating Officer can reduce the amount of loss via the concept known as deprecation. There are formulas use to do this, however, one such formula will allow for the reduction of lost property value due to depreciation by up to 25%.

One final point to remember is that in most cases, the actual amount of loss to be recovered from the “Respondent” is limited by their base pay. So for example, if “Respondent” losses 2 million dollars worth of property, the most they would have to pay would be up to one month of their base pay and for the average service member that would be less then $4,500.00 per month.

For more information on the role of the FLIPL Investigator and what to expect if you are a “target” of an investigation check out the Department of the Army Pamphlet 735-5, "Financial Liability Officer’s Guide" at: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/p735_5.pdf

Life Insurance

Life Insurance is a very important and valuable benefit for service members. At the time I wrote my book, The Service Member’s Guide to Deployment; What every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Marine should know prior to being deployed., service members who died while on active duty received up to $400,000 and under certain situations could receive even more money. Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance or SGLI is life insurance policy the covers service members who die or are killed. The money is paid directly to the named beneficiary or beneficiaries upon the death of the service member. This money could also be used to fund a Trust. The trustee would then carry out the wishes of the deceased service member. Additionally, there are other monies paid to the family upon the death of a service member in combat. I discuss those benefits in greater detail in my book.

It is very important that as a service member you review your SGLI policy to include beneficiary information for changes or necessary modifications. A thorough review of your insurance policy is a must and should be done yearly regardless of your deployment status. You need to review your beneficiary information just in case something unfortunate happens to you the service member. You want to make certain that the person receiving the death benefit actually is the intended recipient or beneficiary. You certainly want to ensure your intended beneficiary is provided for if you are killed while serving your country.

I know of several cases where because the service member did not update their SGLI policy, an ex-spouse or someone other then the intended beneficiary received the insurance money. In situations like that, there is little the intended beneficiary can do, especially without court intervention. Even then, the intended beneficiary has very little to adequately show they were the intended beneficiary. Think of it this way, if it were that easy to contest the named beneficiary, courts would be tied up more then they are already with cases of folks trying to overturn what the court assumes is the “will” of the deceased. If you find yourself in a situation like that, contact an attorney immediately to discuss all of your possible options.

Earn money with ACN

To my fellow deployed service members, check out this site!

ACN

Military database shows increasing Afghan civilian deaths

Casualty data released Thursday by the U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan paint a month-by-month picture of an increasingly deadly war there for civilians.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led military coalition in Afghanistan has released its internal database of civilian casualties. In this visualization of the data, monthly casualties rise above the region of Afghanistan in which they occurred, from January 2009 to December 2010. Over this period, 2537 civilians were killed, and 5594 were wounded, with weaponry and perpetrator coded by color.

The International Security Assistance Force "CIVCAS" database provided to the journal Science, suggests insurgents, largely through bombs and executions, caused 80% of the 2,537 civilians deaths over the last two years in Afghanistan. The CIVCAS totals of civilian deaths are about half those of a yearly United Nations estimate released Wednesday, but the trend of increasing insurgent killings is consistent.

The Afghanistan war, "has become a counter-insurgency, where civilian casualties are the only game in town," says Science reporter John Bohannon, a molecular biologist who "embedded" with the CIVCAS team in Afghanistan last year. "If you can't get those down, you are never going to win the war."

ISAF began keeping the database's civilian death numbers in 2007, but only in the last two years has it systematically tracked civilian deaths by incident type, such airstrike or assassination. "We acknowledge that there are likely additional civilian casualties that we cannot track, but the trends between all organizations are very similar," says Colette Murphy, a U.S. naval officer with ISAF Public Affairs, attributing differences with UN and human rights group estimates of Afghan civilian deaths to methodology differences, primarily in use of media reports of casualties. "All point to the Taliban as causing the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties."

The release in Science magazine, agreed to after months of negotiations with ISAF, should help outside researchers analyze the conflict. An analysis of the CIVCAS data prepared by the magazine in collaboration with six outside experts finds:

•Civilian deaths increased 19% in 2010, with summer months and the Southern provinces around Kandahar the deadliest. The UN data shows a 15% jump.

•Airstrikes were the largest source of military-caused civilians deaths, 136 over the last two years, but they dropped 11% in 2010. UN numbers are much higher, 171 deaths in 2010 alone, but that was a 50% drop in air attack deaths from the previous year.

•Improvised explosives killed the most civilians, 777 men, women and children last year, with the Taliban increasing their use in the face of last year's U.S.-led military offensive that doubled troop numbers to 140,000.

"Clearly there has been an effort to address civilian casualties caused by ISAF, but this is only a snapshot," says economist Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway University of London, one of the casualty number analysts. The CIVCAS numbers nearly match data made public last summer in Wikileaks documents, he and others note. Science has made the database and its methodology available on its website. "ISAF has shown a greater willingness to be transparent in releasing monthly regional-level data," Spagat says. "An even greater degree of openness would be to release the incident-by-incident data."

Bohannon acknowledges that ISAF likely released the data because military officials view the story it tells as favorable for them. "(But) what is important is getting the data out," he says, to help public health researchers and analysts gain a more clear picture of the situation facing Afghan civilians.

Casualties in time and space. The seasonal rhythms and shifting battlefields of the war emerge in this view of the 8131 Afghan civilians killed or injured over the past two years, recorded in a military database called CIVCAS. (No data were available for the first 5 months of 2010 in the Southwest region.)CAPTIONGeorge Michael Browe

Although they have roughly similar populations, civilians deaths in the war in Iraq (roughly 100,000 deaths over the course of the conflict by one estimate) have outnumbered those in Afghanistan, which lacks the same crowded cities. "However, as the Taliban shifts its strategy to attacking Afghan government-related targets, which include school teachers and health workers, then it is inevitable that the trend in deaths among non-military personnel will rise," says Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, who has published estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths. "While much of Afghanistan does not overtly support the Taliban, the tolerance for deaths caused by the Taliban is greater than that for death of civilians by ISAF," he adds, by email.

From USAToday